USA V. JODY FONTENOT, No. 11-10368 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 15 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-10368 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00778-RS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JODY DEMAR FONTENOT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 13, 2012** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Jody Fontenot appeals the district court s denial of his motion for suppression of evidence and his subsequent conviction, following a bench trial, for having violated 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons possession of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). firearms. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them save as necessary. We affirm. A police officer may detain an individual to conduct an investigatory frisk consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that [the individual] pose[s] a threat to his safety or the safety of others . . . . United States v. Terry-Crespo, 356 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Here, the police had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Fontenot posed a threat to the safety of others. The police had received a high priority 9-1-1 dispatch that, in the parking lot of a liquor store on the corner of Geneva Avenue and Santos Street in San Francisco, there was a group of guys in front of the store and one of them was pulling out a gun. On arrival four minutes after the 9-1-1 call was made, the police saw only one group in the parking lot, a group of three males, one of whom was Fontenot. This met the requirement of some minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)). Further, as discussed by the district court in its opinion below, the 91-1 dispatch and the police had received an emergency call from a cell phone with the phone number identified; this provided the police with sufficient indicia of 2 reliability prior to the Terry stop to justify reliance on [the call.] Terry-Crespo, 356 F.3d at 1174 (referring to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), because it removed a good deal of the anonymity of the call. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
